Agriculture: Non-genetically Modified Crops

The Countess of Mar: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures they are taking to safeguard the United Kingdom’s natural seed supply from modification and copyrighting by major seed companies so that non-genetically modified seeds are readily available to farmers, horticulturalists and gardeners.

Lord De Mauley: The production and marketing of new types of seed, whether genetically modified (GM) or non-GM, is governed by appropriate rules concerning intellectual property. Natural plant resources may not themselves be copyrighted under several international conventions to which the UK is signatory. The Government does not expect issues to arise with the availability of non-GM seeds.

BBC World Service

Lord Alton of Liverpool: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will reconsider their decision not to ask the BBC to transmit the World Service to the Korean Peninsula if the United Nations Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea recommends that they meet their obligations under Article 19 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights in respect of the broadcast of news and commentary about human rights and democracy to people trapped by an information blockade.

Baroness Warsi: The British Broadcasting Corporation World Service (BBC WS) is editorially, managerially and operationally independent of Government, so decisions on which new language services they wish to introduce are for them to consider and, if appropriate, to put to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague). As the noble Lord is aware the BBC WS recently reviewed the options for the introduction of a Korean language service and concluded, for a number of reasons, that they could not offer a meaningful, impactful and cost effective service.
	The United Nations Commission of Inquiry into human rights abuses in North Korea is due to report to the Human Rights Council in March 2014. It would be inappropriate for us to comment on the content of the report before it has been published and until we have had the opportunity to consider its findings and recommendations in full.

Burma

Lord Alton of Liverpool: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have received any additional information concerning the statement from the United Nations that it has "credible information" about the killing of Rohingya Muslims in Du Chee Yar Tan village in Burma; and what is their assessment of current levels of violence in Arakan State.

Baroness Warsi: We have received reports from a range of sources, including UN agencies, non-governmental organisations, community groups and international partners concerning the killing of Rohingya Muslims in Northern Rakhine State in mid January.
	On 23 January, the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), issued a statement calling on the Burmese government to launch an immediate and transparent investigation into the violence – a message he delivered directly to the Burmese government during his visit to Burma from 28-30 January. The Burmese government must continue to provide security for all communities in Rakhine State and enable the free distribution of international assistance.
	British Embassy officials visited Rakhine State from 29 January to 1 February as part of an EU diplomatic mission. Whilst there were no signs of further violence at that time, the situation remains tense and there have been reports that a number of houses were set on fire in Du Chee Yar Tan village on the night of 28 January.

Central African Republic

Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the decision of the European Union Foreign Affairs Council on 20 January regarding offering support to French and African Union forces.

Baroness Warsi: We believe that an EU Common Security and Defence Policy military operation in Central African Republic (CAR) of up to six months, as agreed in principle at the Foreign Affairs Council on 20 January, will help to achieve a secure environment in the Bangui area. Such an operation will reinforce the African Union’s efforts and provide real and capable support to the African-led International Support Mission to CAR (MISCA).
	The establishment of an EU operation in support of MISCA remains subject to a European Council Decision. Further operational planning and a second Council Decision is required before the Operation is launched. The UK has made clear to our EU partners the importance it places on UK Parliamentary Scrutiny procedures in this context.
	The UK continues to play a strong role in the international response to the situation in CAR, and is supportive of international actions that can make a positive difference on the ground. In addition to our work with the EU, we strongly supported UN Resolution 2127 in December 2013 which mandated the deployment of French forces and MISCA, and worked closely with UN Security Council partners to agree a robust mandate for the UN Integrated Peacebuilding Office in the Central African Republic (BINUCA), the UN political office in CAR.

Central African Republic

Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the request by the European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy for support for a European Union peacemaking mission to the Central African Republic.

Baroness Warsi: The UK continues to play a strong role in the international response to the situation in the Central African Republic (CAR), and is supportive of international actions, including by the EU, that can make a positive difference on the ground. At the Foreign Affairs Council on 20 February, EU Member States agreed in principle to an EU Common Security and Defence Policy military operation in CAR of up to six months to help achieve a secure environment in the Bangui area. We believe that this operation will reinforce the African Union’s efforts and provide real and capable support to the African-led International Support Mission to CAR (MISCA).
	The establishment of an EU operation in support of MISCA is subject to a European Council Decision. Further operational planning and a second Council Decision is required before the Operation is launched. The UK has made clear to our EU partners the importance it places on UK Parliamentary Scrutiny procedures in this context. The UK has not received a specific request for support from the European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

Commissioning Support Units

Lord Rea: To ask Her Majesty’s Government which of the newly formed Commissioning Support Units, hosted by the National Commissioning Board, are now functioning autonomously.
	To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many Clinical Commissioning Groups are making use of Commissioning Support Units for (1) all, or (2) part, of their commissioning requirements.
	To ask Her Majesty’s Government what has been the total cost of setting up Commissioning Support Units; what was the (1) highest, and (2) lowest, cost of each unit; from what sources the cost has been met; and who will be responsible for their running costs.
	To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proportion of the managerial staff of Commissioning Support Units has come from (1) the National Health Service (primary care trusts and other), (2) the independent sector, (3) the charitable sector, and (4) local government.
	To ask Her Majesty’s Government what has been the cost of consultancy services used in setting up and running Commissioning Support Units.

Earl Howe: No National Health Service commissioning support units (CSUs) are functioning autonomously. All CSUs are currently hosted by NHS England and will move to independent forms by the end of 2016.
	Under the Health and Social Care Act 2012, clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) can choose where and how they secure their commissioning support requirements. The detail of which CCGs purchase what services from CSUs is not held centrally. However, NHS England has advised that the vast majority of CCGs, but not all, are choosing to source services from NHS CSUs, but this varies significantly across the country. On average, CCGs are spending around £12 per head of population on CSUs, from their £25 per head of population running cost allowance. The spend has, however, increased over the last year as CCGs look to CSUs to support them in developing their short and long term strategic commissioning plans and supporting the transformation of services locally.
	The 18 NHS CSUs were set up from the previous system of 152 primary care trusts (PCTs) to offer support services to NHS commissioners—including CCGs and NHS England—established under the Health and Social Care Act 2012. They are not separate statutory bodies and secure the entirety of their income, and hence cover their own running costs, from the support services, such as analysis, contracting, change management and back office functions that they deliver to their customers. They employ around 8,500 staff and generate a total income of £750 million. A breakdown of these figures has not been provided because this information is commercially sensitive and might jeopardise a CSU's commercial position when competing for work from CCGs or other customers. The 18 NHS CSUs will move to independent forms by the end of 2016, at which point they will sit outside of the NHS and their viability will be dependent entirely on the income they source from providing high quality and responsive services to their customers.
	Neither the Department nor NHS England hold information centrally on where managerial staff in CSUs have previously worked. However, NHS England advise that the vast majority of staff that deliver services within each of the CSUs have been appointed from previous roles in PCTs and other NHS organisations, ensuring the retention of key commissioning skills and experience.
	The total consultancy spend by commissioning support services was £10 million from April 2013 to September 2013. This is the only period for which NHS England has data. Many of the services provided by consultancies
	through CSUs are to complement the overall support offer being provided to customers, including CCGs and NHS England.

Crime: Hate Crime

Lord Black of Brentwood: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to combat homophobic hate crime, in the light of the Stonewall Gay British Crime Survey 2013.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: Tackling all forms of hate crime, including that motivated by hatred of a person's sexual orientation, is an issue the Government takes very seriously, and the Minister for Crime Prevention has met Stonewall to discuss the findings of the Gay British Crime Survey 2013.
	We continue to work with the police and other partners to encourage more victims of hate crime to come forward and report what has happened to them. We have improved police recording of hate crimes based on sexual orientation, and recently published new data on hate crime in England and Wales to help police forces and police and crime commissioners to focus resources where they are needed.

Democratic Republic of Congo

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the Intergovernmental Consultation on Migration, Asylum, and Refugees that is used in deciding asylum cases regarding the Democratic Republic of the Congo has been published and is currently accessible; and, if it has been published, whether they will place a copy of the report in the Library of the House.
	To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they will make available the transcripts of the interviews conducted by the Country of Origin Information Service in June 2012 with Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch in respect of conditions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: A country policy bulletin for the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) was published on the Home Office web site in November 2012. The bulletin contained information obtained by the Home Office Country of Origin (COI) Service from the Intergovernmental Consultation on Migration, Asylum and Refugees (IGC) and from interviews with Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. It was noted in the bulletin that the full IGC survey and transcripts of the interviews would be provided on request. The data was then made available in February 2013 to decision makers in a COI bulletin “DRC: Statistics and Information on the Treatment of Returns (To Kinshasa)”.
	Both the country policy bulletin of November 2012 and the COI bulletin of February 2013 will be made available in the Library of the House.
	Updated IGC information will be included in the DRC country policy bulletin which we expect to publish in February 2014.

Embryology

Lord Alton of Liverpool: To ask Her Majesty’s Government further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 22 January (WA 124–5), why they consider that every embryo from which the nuclear material is removed during pronuclear transfer would theoretically survive; what other examples they can provide of an embryo surviving removal of its nucleus; and which of the enucleated embryos correspond to the 10 people they consider would otherwise die but whose lives would be saved.

Earl Howe: We have been advised that an enucleated embryo could not survive because it would have no potential for normal development without nuclear DNA. The pronuclear transfer technique, used in mitochondrial donation treatment, involves the transfer of the nuclear DNA from the patients' embryo to an embryo with healthy mitochondria that has had its own nuclear DNA removed. No information is held centrally on individual embryos that have been enucleated.
	It would not be appropriate to speculate on which enucleated embryo might result in the birth of a child following its use in a mitochondria] donation treatment cycle.

Genetic Modification

Lord Alton of Liverpool: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 22 January (WA 128–9), whether they are opposed to genetic modification of humans in all circumstances.

Earl Howe: The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, as amended, determines the eggs, sperm and embryos that can be used for human reproductive treatment purposes. The Act provides that only eggs, sperm and embryos that are considered to be “permitted” eggs, sperm and embryos, as defined by section 3ZA, may be placed in a woman.
	Eggs, sperm and embryos are considered to be permitted if the mitochondrial and nuclear DNA has not been altered. However, section 3ZA(5) allows for regulations to be made to allow eggs and embryos to be classified as permitted (and therefore used in treatment) if, in specified circumstances, they have had a process applied to them designed to prevent the transmission of serious mitochondrial disease.
	The application of any other process would prevent the egg, sperm or embryo from being considered permitted and, therefore, would prohibit them from being placed
	in a woman. This reflects the debates and approval of Parliament and the Government has no plans to amend the primary legislation in this area.

Genetic Modification

Lord Alton of Liverpool: To ask Her Majesty’s Government further to the Written Answers by Earl Howe on 18 December (WA 210–11) and 22 January (WA 129), why they cited the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 2000 when the latter question made no such reference, and, given their previous statement that it would be inappropriate to discuss work with human embryos in terms of those Regulations, whether it is the terminology or the techniques it describes that they wish to exclude when considering humans; and whether they will now state whether they consider (1) an egg or embryo in which the nuclear DNA is removed and entirely replaced by that from a different egg or embryo, or (2) an egg or embryo that has had just one nuclear gene replaced by homologous recombination, to be genetically modified.

Earl Howe: My written answers of 18 December and 22 January made reference to the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 2000 because the noble Lord had referred to techniques carried out in non-human species that are subject to these regulations in his questions.
	The Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations were developed specifically to cover techniques in non-human organisms and exclude humans and human embryos.
	The proposed mitochondrial donation techniques only allow for unaltered nuclear DNA to be transferred into an egg or embryo that has unaltered healthy mitochondria and the original nuclear DNA removed. The key consideration is that these mitochondria] donation techniques only substitute, rather than alter, a very limited number of unhealthy genes in the 'battery pack' of the cells with healthy ones. Most importantly, mitochondria] donation techniques do not alter personal characteristics and traits, as they do not alter the parental nuclear DNA and genes.

Genetic Modification

Lord Alton of Liverpool: To ask Her Majesty’s Government further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 18 December (WA 210–11), in what terms it would be appropriate
	to discuss such work; what principles they adopt in defining the same scientific techniques in closely related species; and whether in doing so they follow the legislative framework regarding the application of those techniques in particular instances or scientific understanding of the techniques.

Earl Howe: The Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 2000 specifically exclude humans and human embryos from their coverage and there is no read across from legislation that was developed to cover techniques in non-human organisms.
	In developing draft regulations for consultation, which would allow mitochondrial donation techniques to be used in treatment, the Government has had regard to the advice of the expert panel convened by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. The expert panel carried out scientific reviews of the safety and efficacy of methods to avoid mitochondrial disease through assisted reproduction in April 2011 and March 2013, including looking at research involving different species. The expert panel will be asked to review the latest scientific evidence on safety and efficacy before regulations are put before Parliament.

Government Departments: Research and Development

Lord Adonis: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much the Ministry of Defence spent in total in (1) 2010–11, (2) 2011–12, (3) 2012–13, and (4) 2013–14; how much the department spent on research and development in each of those years; and, how much the department spent on the Small Business Research Initiative in each of those years.

Lord Astor of Hever: The information currently available, that for financial years 2010-11 to 2012- 13, is set out in the following table. Information for 2013-14 will be available after the end of this financial year (FY).
	
		
			 Expenditure category Outturn FY 2010-11 (£ million) Outturn FY 2011-12 (£ million) Outturn FY 2012-13 (£ million) 
			 Defence Spending (1) 39,461 37,169 34,260 
			 Net Expenditure on Research & Development (2) 1,693 1,306 Not yet available 
			 Expenditure on the Small Business Research Initiative (3) 4 12 8 
		
	
	(1) Defence spending is the sum of the Resource Departmental Expenditure Limit and the Capital Departmental Expenditure Limit less Depreciation and Impairments and Fixed Assets written on or off.
	(2) The methodology used in calculating the figures for research and development follows the Organisation for Economic Co-operation & Development's Frascati Guidelines which align with the definitions used in the National Accounts.
	(3) The figures represent the recorded value of contracts placed by the Centre for Defence Enterprise which has been working with the Small Business Research Initiative since 2010-11.

Government Departments: Research and Development

Lord Adonis: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many competitions the Ministry of Defence held for the Small Business Research Initiative (SBRI) in (1) 2010–11, (2) 2011–12, (3) 2012–13, and (4) 2013–14; how many Phase 2 SBRI projects the department funded in each of those years; and how many of the department’s SBRI-funded projects led to procurement contracts in each of those years.

Lord Astor of Hever: The number of competitions the Ministry of Defence's (MOD) Centre for Defence Enterprise (CDE) has held and the number of projects under contract in association with the Small Business Research Initiative (SBRI) are set out in the following table:
	
		
			  Financial Year (FY) 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 
			 SBRI Competitions 12 14 14 
			 Phase 1 SBRI projects 85 184 106 
			 Phase 2 SBRI projects (Note) Nil 6 10 
		
	
	As exploitation of the projects funded often involves merging different ideas together, we have not routinely recorded the exploitation of Phase 1 projects into Phase 2. The figures therefore represent only those projects we are aware of centrally.
	The information for FY 2013-14 will be available after the end of the financial year. We do not record the number of SBRI-funded projects that have led to further procurement by the Department.
	The CDE is the MOD’s first point of contact for anyone wishing to submit an unsolicited research idea to the Department. It has been working with SBRI since the 2010-11.

Government: Ministerial Meetings

Lord Naseby: To ask Her Majesty’s Government which United Kingdom Tamil organisations were invited by the Prime Minister to attend a meeting at Number 10 Downing Street on 7 November 2013; and which organisations attended.

Baroness Warsi: Representatives of the following groups were invited to a meeting at Number 10 Downing Street on 7 November 2013: Global Tamil Forum, British Tamils Forum, British Tamil Conservatives, Tamils for Labour, Tamil Information Centre, Tamils Against Genocide, and Ilankai Tamil Arasu Katchi (UK Branch). All of the invited groups attended the meeting.
	In addition to meeting these groups to discuss their concerns relating to attendance at the Commonwealth
	Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM), and before visiting Sri Lanka to attend CHOGM, my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State, (Hugo Swire) met with a range of interlocutors, including the Sri Lankan High Commissioner, Non-Governmental Organisations, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Conservative Friends of Sri Lanka, and Parliamentarians including from the All Party Parliamentary Groups for Tamils and on Sri Lanka, my noble Friend included.

Government: Ministerial Visits

Lord Myners: To ask Her Majesty’s Government which ministers attended the World Economic Forum in Davos; how many officials accompanied them; and how many flew on budget airlines.

Baroness Warsi: The Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron), the Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Halam (Mr Clegg), the Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), the Secretary of State for International Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Ms Greening), and the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), attended the World Economic Forum at Davos this year. 25 officials accompanied them. Ministers travel, making the most efficient and cost-effective arrangements, in accordance with chapter 10 of the 'Ministerial Code'. Details of ministerial overseas travel are published quarterly and are available on the gov.uk website.

Government: Regulations

Lord Stevens of Ludgate: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the comments by the Prime Minister on 27 January that over 3,000 regulations would be scrapped or amended over the course of the current Parliament, how many new regulations they estimate will have been brought in over the same period; and of those how many will have originated in the European Union.

Viscount Younger of Leckie: The Red Tape Challenge addresses the existing stock of domestic regulation inherited by this Government. The 3,000 regulations are a mix of statutory instruments and Acts (or parts of Acts), which will either be scrapped entirely or improved through consolidation of rules, or reducing the burdens of those rules
	The Government manages the flow of new Regulation through the One-in, One-out and One-in, Two out programme, and reports on it through six-monthly Statements of New Regulation (https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/one-in-two-out-statement-of-new-regulation).
	Each Statement reports on the cost to business of new regulations and the savings to businesses of deregulation (including some Red Tape Challenge reforms) rather than the overall numbers of statutory instruments that have been introduced or removed. New regulations which impose a burden on business can now only be introduced if matched by a deregulatory measure that produces twice the saving to business. Since 2011 there have been 56 "INs" creating costs to business and 135 "OUTs" creating savings for business. There have also been 108 measures with zero net cost to business. Since the start of 2013 we have also reported on EU regulations, identifying 54. 10 of these have been validated as “INs”, 3 as “OUTs” and 36 as having zero net cost.

Immigration

Lord Bradshaw: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have considered changes to the charges imposed on appellants during the immigration appeal process and allowing the losing party to bear the costs.

Lord Faulks: The Government keeps the fees charged for bringing proceedings in the Immigration and Asylum chamber under review.
	The First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), the “FtTIAC”, rules of procedure do not provide for the tribunal to award costs (‘expenses’ in Scotland). The tribunal does, however, have the power to award a successful appellant an amount up to the value of any fee they have paid.
	The Tribunal Procedure Committee, the independent body responsible for the rules governing the FtTIAC, recently consulted on proposals to amend the current costs regime. The proposed rule changes would provide the tribunal with the power to make wasted costs orders against legal representatives where it is appropriate to do so, and also to make an order for costs where a party to litigation has behaved unreasonably.
	The response to that consultation will be published in due course and any rule amendments will follow thereafter. There is currently no consideration being given to moving to a position where the losing party would normally pay their opponent’s costs.

Israel and Palestine

Lord Turnberg: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of their commitment to a two-state solution in the Middle East, what discussions they are having with
	the Palestinian Authority and the government of Israel to encourage them to make concessions; and what concessions they consider would make a positive impact.

Baroness Warsi: We are having regular discussions about the current peace talks with the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, including during recent visits by Ministers of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development, and are encouraging both to make the bold steps necessary to achieve peace.

Official Secrets Act

Lord Empey: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Astor of Hever on 23 January (WA 163), how many applications have been received from serving or former members of the Armed Forces for permission to disclose information in legal proceedings relating to their Crown service since 1972.

Lord Astor of Hever: The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Piracy

Lord Luce: To ask Her Majesty’s Government in each of the last five years, (1) how many Somali piracy incidents involving British citizens, ships or interests occurred in the Indian Ocean, (2) how many hostages were held in such incidents, and (3) what was the value of ransoms paid.

Baroness Warsi: In the last five years there has been one act of piracy involving British nationals: this was against the sailing yacht Lynn Rival in October 2009 when two British nationals were taken hostage. Two United Kingdom flagged merchant vessels have also been pirated: MV St. James Park and her crew of 26 non-British nationals were held hostage following an attack in December 2009; and MV Asian Glory and her crew of 25 non-British nationals were held hostage following an attack in January 2010.
	The Government has campaigned strongly against kidnap for ransom payments, including at this year's G8. For that reason, it does not make or facilitate substantive concessions to hostage takers and this includes the payment of ransoms because we believe this encourages future kidnaps. For this reason we have no confirmed information about the value of ransoms paid.

Prisoners: Ethnic Minorities

Baroness Stern: To ask Her Majesty’s Government further to the finding in the report on HMP Wayland by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons published on 22 January that the experience of some ethnic minorities was “poor”, what action they have taken to improve those prisoners' treatment.

Lord Faulks: HMP Wayland has committed to provide a safe, decent and compliant Public Sector Prison that delivers outcomes within budget.
	Since the Inspection, considerable work has been undertaken by the Equalities Team in HMP Wayland. An improved management restructure has provided greater ability to deliver strategic management of equalities and to address the shortcomings identified in the Inspection report.
	The prison has made improvements to its Incentives and Earned Privilege (IEP) scheme to provide greater clarity and transparency for officers and offenders which has delivered a positive outcome on disproportionality.
	A full review of the Discrimination Incident Reporting Form (DIRF) process has been undertaken with training provided for managers. Every DIRF received is now fully and properly investigated and responses have increased confidence in the integrity of this system.
	Data relating to many regime outcomes is reviewed and analysed on a monthly basis and indicates that there is no difference in outcomes for offenders based upon ethnicity.
	The Governor has commissioned a steering group to address the negative perceptions of the Black and Minority Ethnic population and the prison has undertaken a broader approach to the monitoring of all protected characteristics to ensure that any form of discrimination is identified and challenged and that all offenders feel that they are treated with decency and respect.

Railways: South West Trains

Lord Patten: To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they expect the new ticket office and waiting room at Templecombe station, Somerset, to be opened; and what is their assessment of the project management by South West Trains and Network Rail in the construction of new projects.

Baroness Kramer: We have been informed by South West Trains that work is ongoing, and they expect to finish within the next month.
	The delivery of this scheme is the responsibility of the operator, Stagecoach South West Trains. Therefore, we have made no assessment of the project management in regard to this work.

Romania

The Lord Bishop of St Albans: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what analysis they have made of reports of the forced evictions of Roma communities in Cluj-Napoca, Romania; and whether they will discuss the matter with the government of Romania and ask that government to enforce the decision of the Cluj-Napoca County Court that evictions targeting the Roma community are illegal.

Baroness Warsi: Our Embassy in Bucharest has been monitoring this issue closely (along with other forced evictions of Roma e.g. in Eforie Sud and Baia Mare). We understand that the Cluj-Napoca Court recently ruled the forced eviction in December 2010 illegal. However this decision is not final and is subject to appeal. We have raised wider concerns about social inclusion of the Roma with the Romanian government on 28 January. With regard to this specific case, the British Embassy will visit Cluj on 11 February and will raise the issue of forced evictions with the local government. They will also launch a partnership with a local NGO to develop projects aimed at preventing disadvantaged Roma children leaving school before the minimum age. The UK government does not condone unjustified evictions of any community.

Syria

Baroness Tonge: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the need for an emergency evacuation of children from Syria.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Rt Hon Friend the Home Secretary set out the arrangements for the Vulnerable Persons relocation scheme in her statement on 29 January, Official Report, Column 863-865.

Waterways: Dredging

Lord Patten: To ask Her Majesty’s Government when each of the main rivers draining the Somerset Levels was last dredged.

Lord De Mauley: On the downstream tidal reaches of the River Parrett, the most recent de-silting works were carried out in 2005, with earlier de-silting carried
	out in 2002 and 2004. This work was in the form of trials using water based equipment, together with monitoring to evaluate its effectiveness.
	Pinch point de-silting works took place in October 2013 at five pinch points on the River Tone. Pinch point de-silting is an interim step to maximise channel capacity while the feasibility of longer-term approaches are explored with partner organisations.

Young Offenders: Transfers

Baroness Stern: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many young people were transferred from the children's secure estate to the over-18 secure estate in 2011–12 and 2012–13, broken down by (1) gender, (2) age, and (3) sentence length.

Lord Faulks: The Ministry of Justice recognises that young people need to be appropriately supported as they transition from youth to adult custody. In 2012 the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) published a Transitions Protocol to improve how transitions between youth and adult establishments are managed. The Youth Justice Board (YJB) and NOMS are working closely together with other colleagues to improve processes for the transfer of young adults from the youth estate.
	However, information on the number of young people transferring from the youth secure estate to the over-18 estate is not currently held centrally. We are examining how we can provide robust data on the number of young people transferring from the youth to the adult estate.
	We will write to Baroness Stern shortly to provide more detail of this work.